>> >They're ugly. Just like 2nd gen mustangs.
> >> The only "ugly" 2nd gen. Camaros IMO are the 74-77 models.
> >
> > Thanks Leonard! I was about to get all hacked about this thread until I
> >remembered that most people associate the 2nd Gen Camaro with the 74+ > >models.
> Much more than thier styling was the fact that they were a piece of crap for
> quarter mile and horrible handling. Not that the 1st gens handled worth a
> hoot but the 350/396 upto 375hp 1st gens at least had decent quarter mile
> straight line performance that was really even matched in the 3rd gens.
> Gawd Nobody buys a Camaro or Firebird to to be put to sleep when they stomp
> down on the gas. 2nd gens were so gutless there just wasn't any point. Not
> that they couldn't be fixed up. They just didn't stir anyone's imaginations
> new from the factory so they didn't sell near as well. It was better to
> rebuild/restore your 1st gen or Goat/Malibu than to piss around with a 2nd
> gen F-Body. About the only people that bought 2nd gen F-Bodys were middle > aged men.
> > When I hear 2nd gen I think 70-1/2 thru 73, and forget the later ones
> >(in fact for a long time I thought the 3rd gen started with 74 because
> >IMO they were a significant departure, both in performance and
> >appearance (and in the wrong direction).
> Actually factory F-Body performance wasn't worth even talking about until at
> least 1986, well into the 3rd gens. That included both speed and handling.
> > I love the look of the early 2nd gens (like mine). That "fighter plane"
> >nose intake (which they have kinda redicsovered in the new one) and the
> >reasonably aerodynamic shape (for the time) IS what I think of when I
> >think Camaro.
> I liked it when I first saw it 26 years ago, but now when I see it it looks
> like the Bell Bottoms of Auto Styling <chuckle>. Could be bell bottoms are
> coming back also <couldn't resist the comparison>.
> > Unfettered V8 power is another plus. Although the purists will shake
> >their heads at my '67 327 in mine. I'd rather have it as it is than the
> >sick-baby-s*it-green, inline six, three-on-the-tree, base model it was > >when new.
> That was what the 2nd gen was lacking that you put in...a motor..Not bad
> once you did that, but like the 1st gen's, they still didn't handle worth a
> crap. There are a lot of good running 327's still rolling around. Not much
> of a demand for stock 2nd gens so you just as well forget the purist and
> make it worth driving.
> Now if you had something like a 1964 goat w/389 tri-power, then it's good to
> be a purist as I can't imagine running anything in the goat but a 389
> tripower, but On a 2nd gen camaro/firebird, the best you can do for the poor
> thing is to run something (anything) besides the stock engine that came in
> those old beaters.
I'm the original owner of a 72 Z28 Camaro with 46K on it and other than some modest engine mods looks as good as the day I bought it and always get thumbs up driving it or a crowd around it. Read some of the negative comments here from those I'm sure don't know crapola about them. If anyone goes back and reads some of the old road test and all state it's a much more refined and better handling car than the Gen 1 with better performance and excellent handling. It's styling was very refined and European. I will agree Chevy ruined the 74 on with it's ugly front bumper. If you never owned one or drove one and compared the two you obviously know nothing. I've owned four Z28's over the years and they will always be my favorite over the Mustang and Charger.